"This new movement in religion emphasizes experience as both an end in itself of the Christian life and as a means to discover the truth. This kind of emphasis is not an isolated phenomenon in Christian circles, on the contrary, it is the
Christian manifestation of a much wider trend in our culture. The seventies were often called the ‘Me Decade’ because it was a time when a great many people turned to themselves to cultivate their inner lives." Experience and Faith: The
Significance of Luther for Understanding Today’s Experiential Religion, William Hordern. Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis. 1983, p. 14.
Dear Audie,
Greetings in Christ Jesus our Lord!
I want to start by sincerely thanking you for writing the letter you sent. It is obvious that you have taken these things seriously and are open to discussion. I know that there have been hundreds of people who have read what I
have written about Is That Really You God?, but, believe it or not, you are the first person who has written to me about anything specific in that area. On the other hand, I get a lot of letters from people who just condemn me outright,
without pointing out anything specific that I have done wrong, and I get letters from people who praise me and thank me for helping them out of the confusion or abuse that came into their lives through YWAM.
I have still not received any letters from people who came to Christ through the YWAM ministry, if that tells you anything (i.e., a lot of hype without much substance).
I will try to respond conscientiously. I will go through your original message, with some abridging, and make notes to your comments.
> I don't not believe you intended any misleading here, Rev. Robertson, but
> how you present your material gives the impression that Loren Cunningham
> supported his Granddad's actions. But the quote I give above seems to
> pretty clearly show that he did not think his Granddad handled the situation
> properly.
I plan to add some comments to the web page which may go like this:
A friendly writer has brought up to me that, "how you present your material gives the impression that Loren Cunningham supported his Granddad's actions." The writer quoted Loren from a different place in Is That Really
You, God? and it is clear that Loren believed his granddad heard the "what" correctly, but he did not continue listening to the "when and the how" of his "guidance." It is this author's opinion that the
"what" of the guidance was also wrong. In effect, to say that a person heard the "what" but didn't hear the "how and when" is to place the blame on God. Heb 1:1-2 says,
"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." His
speaking to us by His Son in these last days is not an internal voice. It is wound up in the fact that Jesus Christ the Lord came into the world, born of a virgin, He chose many disciples and twelve Apostles. We have the "voice of God," the
"Word of Christ" (the Anointed One), the "Apostles doctrine," in the holy Scriptures. Anyone who goes against them is listening to and following a different shepherd -- no excuses!
If Loren's granddad was listening to the voice of the only true Shepherd, he would never have dumped his family to "go preach the gospel," no matter how powerful the voice of the "angelic messenger." Although
Loren may maintain that he thinks granddad's actions were wrong, his own "guidance" tells a different story. Following in his granddad's spiritual footsteps, Loren also listens to a shepherd who has told him to excommunicate people without
biblical grounds, to proclaim that God was going to give them the Maori, etc., etc. These actions have been against Scripture and terribly destructive to others. No one with any spiritual discernment should allow Loren to get away with blaming the
loss of the ship on the idea that "god changed his mind." Although Loren claims that God changed his mind because YWAM leaders sinned, that is only a superficial guilt-taking for the travesty. The voice of God is unmistakably clear:
"Now listen, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.' Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist
that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, 'If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that.' As it is, you boast and brag. All such boasting is evil. Anyone, then, who knows the good he
ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." James 4:13-17
If YWAM leaders were truly listening to the voice of the Spirit, His voice would have been in perfect agreement with James 4:13-17. In my opinion, that is the greatest trick of Satan that has taken place in this modern
apostasy. He has gotten people to listen to extra-biblical voices and call them the "voice of the Shepherd." They are patently NOT the voice of the Shepherd!
There is no record that Loren and other YWAM leaders have ever grasped the extent of the harm caused by their listening to these angelic voices, nor is there any record that they have repented and turned back to
the Lord. It would be difficult for God to speak more clearly to us than He has already spoken to us, but those who do not have ears to hear His true voice, make His clear words into parables and His parables into clear
words. Loren Cunningham is no less guilty of this than is his granddad. Read an excerpt from Christi-anarchy by former YWAMer Dave Andrews. Or this letter about Loren's knowledge that the Maori would never have worked for YWAM. Why does he continue to blame God for "changing His mind" when he knew all the while that the ship would have been useless for YWAM
purposes? Whitewash! Above ground everything looks clean and swept, but underneath there are dead bodies!
Does anyone have knowledge that Loren has repented of these grievous sins? If he hasn't repented, he in the place to be excommunicated from fellowship with the people of God, on biblical grounds! If you find fault
with the foregoing statement, please explain.
"Satan prizes syncretism not only for its ability
to introduce deceptive agents into the cultural bloodstream, but for its capacity to absorb and disarm Gospel incursions. Rather than deny Christians access to the societies he controls, the enemy simply uses the blender of syncretism to dilute their
message. The resulting product is often a culture in which Christian symbolism is cleverly commingled with indigenous history and alternative doctrines. Some scholars and theologians tout such cultures as examples of contextualized faith. But in
reality these cultures are nothing less than idolatry with an acceptable face. The old ways and gods, as any informed observer will tell you, are still very much alive."
". . . Finding an alternative deity is easy, thanks
to the pervasive influence of tradition. Even when a people tire of a particular god or practice, they are generally reluctant to sever all links with the past. Motivated by guilt, fear or even plain habit, they prefer to maintain their old spiritual
mistresses (sometimes quite lavishly) at the same time that they are courting new flames."
> "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations
> of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not
> allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want
> to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for
> it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God
> originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody
> thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what
> I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself
> will be ignored." 1 Corinthians 14:33-38
> I recently read a book called 'Why Not Women' by Loren Cunningham and David
> J. Hamilton, and they seem to give a good defense to the idea of women in
> ministry. If you have read that book, I would be interested in your
> comments on it.
Unfortunately, I have not been able to obtain the new book, but I did receive a letter from a woman in Europe who said that she had read it and that she would hate to be in Loren's shoes on the day of judgment. Judging by the fact
that Loren's hermeneutical style includes listening to angelic voices, it is safe to say that we would have to be very suspect of what he concludes about the voice of Scripture. I have read an excerpt from the book that someone had uploaded to the
internet and it seemed obvious to me that the authors were taking their teaching "to Scripture" instead of "from Scripture." Is it possible that the church has misinterpreted these passages of Scripture wrongly for 2,000 years?
The answer to that is "Yes" it is possible, but it is not likely. There were references in the book to how badly we need women in ministry, etc. "Need," however, has nothing to do with the way we interpret Scripture. It
is only very recent in church history that this new paradigm has come into play.
The following quote reveals some of the differences in interpreting Scripture:
"To-day there are two parties in the churches. They are in active controversy now, and every day their consciousness of difference becomes more sharp and clear. The crux of their conflict lies at this point: one party thinks that the essence
of Christianity is its original mental frameworks; the other party is convinced that the essence of Christianity is its abiding experiences. To one party a mental category once worked out and expressed in Scripture is final. Men must never carry the
living water in any other receptacle than that; to do so is to forego the right to call oneself a Christian. As a recent writer put it: ‘The originators of the Christian movement . . . did have an inalienable right to legislate for all generations
that should choose to bear the name of ‘Christian.’‘ [quoted from J. Gresham Machen: Christianity and Liberalism, 20.] To the other party nothing in human history seems so changeable as mental categories. They are transient phrasings of
permanent convictions and experiences. They rise and fall and pass away. To bind our minds to the perpetual use of ancient matrices of thought just because they were employed in setting forth the eternal principles of the New Testament seems
intellectual suicide. What is permanent in Christianity is not mental frameworks but abiding experiences that phrase and rephrase themselves in successive generations’ ways of thinking and that grow in assured certainty and in richness of
content." The Modern Use of the Bible, Harry Emerson Fosdick, New York, The Macmillian Company, 1924, pp. 102-103. [Fosdick was a representative of liberal Christianity that denies the authority of Scripture.]
The biblical command that women should not have authority over men seems to apply specifically to the pastoral office. This in no way means that women cannot teach or have authority over other women or children. A booklet that is
very well written and with a high respect for Scripture, was published by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and it maintains that Scripture is clear that women should not be pastors. Have they been truly loyal to the Word of God in what they
said, or have they caved in to modern views and personal experience?
In my opinion, the only honest question for the Christian is this: What does Scripture say? To point out our need for women in ministry or the results of a spiritual gifts survey, has no bearing on what God has revealed to us concerning
His will. God does not reveal His will through the prevailing culture, nor through surveys. The Scriptures did not come by the will of man.
We have yet to see what the results will be of the largest church in the world having 70 percent of its cell groups led by women. Apparently this door for women in ministry opened after Loren advised Cho to let mom-Cunningham preach
there. And how do we know that it is okay for mom-Cunningham to have authority over men? Jesus called her with an audible voice!
I wonder what the result will be in Cho's church after another 15 or 20 years have gone by. Then again, results don't prove doctrine. Dave Hunt says in The Occult Invasion, "David Yonggi Cho, pastor of the world's
largest church, located in Seoul, Korea, declares: 'Think positively and prosper.' Cho's brand of Christian Science is based upon 'the law of the fourth dimension,' a law which both Christians and non-Christians can follow in order to create
miracles. He says, 'Sokagakkai [a Buddhist sect] has applied the law of the fourth dimension and has performed miracles. . . .' The Sokagakkai are occultists." (p. 119) In another place, Cho says that the Holy Spirit spoke to him
and said, "My son, man still does not realize the spiritual power I have given to him." and Cho answered him, "Yes, I said, realizing what God was referring to . . . False prophets had power in the realm of the spirit because they
had come to realize their potential." Quoted in The Occult Invasion, p. 123. There are many other references to Cho in the named book, as well as six references to things going on in YWAM. Many biblically informed
Christians would argue that both Cho and YWAM are heading full speed into the great falling away that has been prophesied would take place just before the Lord's return.
Both of these people listening to voices that sometimes say bizarre things and get them to do bizarre things, have drawn attention to themselves in a book written about how the occult has invaded the "Christian"
church. Should we trust their skills in hermeneutics. Is there enough biblical loyalty in the life of Loren Cunningham that we can pretty-much trust that when he speaks he is in line with the Word of God? "This is the primary and basic need of
hermeneutics: to ascertain what God has said in Sacred Scripture; to determine the meaning of the Word of God." Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Bernard Ramm (p. 2.).
> So, you say that 'God can also speak', but you insinuate that Loren's mother
> may have heard from the devil that the five dollars was under a bush?
> Would the devil tell people to 'go and preach the Gospel'?
What would the devil lose by telling Loren's mom where the five dollar bill was at? He would actually have a lot to gain! He would be giving "signs and wonders" so that he could draw away the Lord's people from the
solid rock and get them following other voices. Satan would give almost anything to simply get his foot in the door. He offered Jesus the whole world -- what's five bucks?
As for the devil telling people to "go and preach the Gospel," that is a difficult question. Loren's mom heard an audible voice telling her to preach the Gospel. I would like to know how Loren deals with the following
passages in his treatise on women:
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one
deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." 1 Timothy 2:11-14
Paul seems to be talking about an order of creation, as well as a curse that came with the fall. If these verses are taken at face value, could it have been the true Shepherd that told Loren's mom to take up preaching?
The adversary has been around for a long time and he is such a strategist that we are no match for him. What if he told Hitler to preach the Gospel. Some people in hearing the Gospel ("faith comes by hearing and hearing by the
Word of God") would get saved. From Satan's perspective, he would probably be willing to give up a few souls so that he could gain a much greater foothold in the future.
In Venice Beach, California, I stopped and witnessed to some atheists who had set up a table there to promote atheism. One of the arguments that they brought up to me was that "Hitler was a Christian." I suppose if they
had observed the actions of "granddad Cunningham" or "Loren the Apostle," they might have said the same thing. While Christians are praising Loren and his granddad for having special access to the voice of God, non-Christians are
blaspheming God because of them. Be careful about covering your eyes to the evil these people are and have been committing -- it may come back in the future to haunt you!
> Doesn't Jesus say the His sheep will know His voice?
"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me." John 10:27
Jesus indeed said that His sheep would know His voice. Would you maintain that Loren and the International Council were listening to the Shepherd's voice when they excommunicated Dave Andrews, making him homeless and jobless,
without a friend? According to Scripture, what they have done to the least of His disciples, which fits the description of Dave, they have done it to the Lord Jesus. Was Jesus "knowing" them? Were they "following Him"? If it
smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, could it be a sheep? If leaders follow voices that lead them to sin, should we follow them? How about if those voices only lead them to sin "sometimes"? The Scriptures are
called "infallible"! Do they lead us to sin "sometimes"? NEVER!
> I am sorry, really, that your experiences were so bad. People may be right
> to give us advice and guidance, but they are not right to try to 'play God'.
> If that is what was happening, they were wrong.
What do you mean "was" happening? It has progressed from "shepherding" to "apostles, prophets, the Lord's anointed (Christs), and a New Paradigm," not to
mention the ongoing presence of Moral Government Theology. When I wrote the chapter for Lead Us Not Into Deception, I surmised that this whole thing was leading to the denial of the deity of Christ. I was wrong! Instead of pulling Christ
down, it has lead to the exaltation of man. They have become little gods.
> Page 24 "I felt a bit awkward at the thought of standing in front of
> grownups and preaching about temptation. All I knew were the temptings of a
> thirteen-year-old."
> "Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation
> of the devil." 1 Timothy 3:6 In this passage Paul instructs Timothy about
> the qualifications for those who are to handle the Word and accurately use
> it to feed others.
> So, a child should not witness to other children about Jesus? Or may they
> witness to children, but not adults? And a child has nothing to teach
> adults?
>
> Loren was thirteen years old, but seems to have been a Christian for several
> years, so he wasn't a new convert. Also, Paul is referring to the position
> of Bishop, which isn't the issue here.
Loren wasn't witnessing to other children about Jesus, he was preaching a sermon to adults. Although some children at the age of 13 may be gifted enough to be able to do some accurate exegesis of Scripture, Loren apparently knew
nothing of the skill. His skills and training were in the devotional life, personal experience, and listening to "the shepherd."
The idea that children should be the teachers of adults is a new thing in the history of the world. It has become a common attitude in the school system and society is crumbling like never before. Where does Scripture say,
"Children, raise your parents in the nurture and admonition of the Lord"? Is there anything in Scripture that says children should be the teachers of adults? Jesus said that we should "allow the little children to come to Him, because
of such is the kingdom of God," but that is a lot different than saying we should begin sitting at the feet of children so that they can share their wisdom and knowledge with us.
I do not believe that my statement can honestly be construed to mean that children cannot witness to other children, or even to adults, for that matter.
Your point is well taken that the reference was about those who were looking to be bishops, but it goes with the general tenor of Scripture that adults are to train up children and adults must be careful not to push gifted children or
even young adults forward too quickly, lest they begin to think too highly of themselves. That seems to be exactly what happened with Loren!
> Page 26 "Our hosts told us not to give to beggars because it would encourage
> them, whatever that meant. But I just couldn't turn her away. I reached into
> my pocket and put some coins in her hand."
> For about two years now (as of May 2001) I have been living in Jakarta,
> Indonesia. Crippled people and beggars are numerous. In some cases I believe
> it is wrong to give able-bodied beggars money. For example: one Indonesian
> may work hard all day long and only make enough to get a few bowls of rice
> for his or her family, while another able-bodied beggar who just sits around
> with his hand out, will in some cases bring in more than the person who
> worked all day. According to the Bible, if a person does not work, he should
> not eat! Perhaps Loren's missionary "hosts" should have been humbly
> submitted to. Instead, Loren reveals in his above writing, that he was
> already arrogant and believed that he was somehow special in the eyes of
> God, even while he was still only a young teenager. Perhaps this goes back
> to his "training up from a child" to believe that he and his family had a
> special connection to hear God's voice outside of Scripture.
> Looking into the future, if Loren was a lower-rank YWAMer and he had
> directly disobeyed in this fashion, he would likely have been considered
> rebellious against his leadership and siding with the enemy to fight against
> the work of God! The future YWAM might have considered him demon possessed
> and attempted to exorcise him of the enemy spirit. I wonder what the
> seasoned missionaries thought when this teenager came in with his
> know-it-all and disobedient attitude.
> For one thing, the quote you give is something Loren's father said in church
> after a trip to Israel.
>
> And here is what is said about the beggar in question-- 'She was about
> eight. She wore a shabby dress, her hair was stringy and she carried a
> still younger girl on her hip.'
How is this relevant to the formation of YWAM and the subsequent condemnation of people for much lesser offenses? The point is that Loren directly disobeyed "the Lord's appointed and anointed" (in the YWAM world view). If
Loren truly had a humble and godly attitude, he would have sought further information from the missionaries who had a lot more experience and knowledge than the youngster! Remember the barber illustration that I started the paper with? This is where
it comes into play. Although Loren is perceived to be a person who is extremely close to the Lord and who is only inviting others to the same closeness, maybe he is really just an arrogant rebel who is following a false shepherd and drawing away
disciples after himself! You can also read in the book about his rebellion against Tom Zimmerman, his leader in the Assemblies of God. Tom was filled with the Holy Spirit and had far more experience than Loren. On what grounds did Loren break from
the advice of this "spirit filled" man of God? Again, he had an "extra-biblical" vision which became more important than the voice of God in Scripture.
Ironically, after YWAM was established, blind obedience was demanded from the "sheep." Those who "heard the beat of a different drummer," as Loren says he did, were considered demon possessed in many cases.
> Page 35 "But son, you need to keep everything on the altar. If you get
> proud, God can't use you."
> This statement, although untrue to Scripture, is true according to the
> "traditions of men" that Loren's parents had been taught and passed on to
> their children. It places the emphasis on "what man does," instead of "what
> God has done, and how He uses His Word." To understand the spirit that is
> behind it, we must study the Donatist controversy which took place during
> the time of Augustine:
> How is this untrue in Scripture? The I Timothy 3:6 scripture you used
> earlier warns against pride.
It is untrue to Scripture because Scripture nowhere says such a thing! It is important that you understand the Word of God -- "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." "You shall know the truth and the
truth shall make you free." God works through His Word. There is nothing in Scripture that implies Judas may have had less results than the other apostles. Judas, Herod, Pilate, or even Hitler, and Satan, could have been used of God to
bring salvation to others if they had preached the Word in truth.
In the words of Augustine, "When Petilian, at the Collatio cum Donatistis, said: 'He who receives the faith from a faithless priest, receives not faith, but guilt,' Augustine answered: 'But Christ is not unfaithful (perfidus),
from whom I receive faith (fidem), not guilt (reatum). Christ, therefore, is properly the functionary, and the priest is simply his organ.' 'My origin,' said Augustine on the same occasion, 'is Christ, my root
is Christ, my head is Christ. The seed, of which I was born, is the word of God, which I must obey even though the preacher himself practice not what he preaches. I believe not in the minister by whom I am baptized, but in Christ, who alone justifies
the sinner and can forgive guilt.'" History of the Christian Church, vol. III, Nicene and Post Nicene Christianity, A.D. 311-600. Philip Schaff. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Grand Rapids, fifth edition, revised; fourth
printing, April 1981, pp. 367-368.
The unbiblical principle that Loren has believed from his youth is blindly accepted by his followers because the church has been dumbed-down and no longer understands some of the most simple principles of biblical doctrine. Even logic
contradicts the unbiblical principle. Does God love Loren so much more than the lost that He would refuse to use Loren's words unless Loren is properly sanctified? The truth of God stands sure, without respect to our pride, and it is the truth of God
that sets people free! Can you see how successful Satan has been in using this unbiblical principle to stop the Gospel? The apostles and disciples of Jesus, when He walked the earth, show conclusively that they were not very much sanctified. They
were wanting the best seats at feasts. Two brothers were fighting about who should be sitting at Jesus right hand and they even enrolled their mother in the debate. The disciples had their minds on the reward they were to receive for following Jesus.
They thought they were going to reign with the Messiah and establish the glory of Israel in all the earth. If Jesus believed what Loren believes, we probably would not even have a New Testament to teach us the apostles' doctrine, they would still be
fasting and praying for their sanctification.
In contemporary history, Mike Warnke led thousands to Christ through his Christian comedy and Gospel preaching. Later, Warnke was exposed. All his stories about being a satanic priest were complete fabrications. His best seller on
Logos, The Satan Seller, was a lie. Even if Satan himself preached the Word of God as it is in Christ, he would have some positive results.
I have read of recent YWAM outreaches where those involved were not allowed to reach-out yet because leadership did not feel they were quite sanctified enough. They spent most of their time looking inward and searching for sin, while
those in need of hearing the Gospel went on in darkness. Finally, at the end of the crusade, they were finally allowed to spend a little time with the people, and even that seems to have been concentrated on social ministry without sharing the Word.
The spiritual mapping and spiritual warfare stuff is also involved in stopping the Word of God. Read what I wrote about Borobudur and I think you will agree. It is better to never pray, but to preach the Word, than it is to pray
your life away and remain silent. God works through the Word. Read through the book of Acts. It is unmistakable.
Just because God works through the Word, doesn't mean that we should not repent of the sin of pride. It is as natural for a Christian to repent of pride as it is for oranges to have orange peelings to keep the bugs away -- God created
them that way. In the circles where people believe they have contributed something to their salvation, the natural result is pride. In circles where people believe they are saved by faith alone and that the faith that has saved them was a gift from
God, the natural result is humility.
> In the above quote, Loren says "I was all for education".
> Also, on the next page, he says "We should recruit young people, send them
> out immediately-- right after high school, so that later even going to
> college would have a new a deeper purpose."
> Considering that many students in college are drifting, not knowing what to
> do in the future, the idea of having them gain some real-world experience,
> do some good things for God, and then gain training and education in
> something they know has a purpose, doesn't seem like a bad thing.
Although Loren has been responsible for a large part of the dumbing-down of the Christian populace, he gives lip service to education and YWAM has now started the University of the Nations. But there is still much greater value placed
on the devotional life and knowing God's voice.
When I was in YWAM the atmosphere was very anti-intellectual. Because I was uneducated I was easy prey for false doctrine. When I got out of YWAM I was still anti-intellectual. I felt that education was something that really lead
away from Christ and I was suspect of those who got into serious theological study. Read the testimony, "My YWAM Daze," for the complete story. It wasn't until I was 33 years old that I finally began working on my bachelor's degree. I got
an M.A. when I was 45 and I got the M.Div. when I was 49. Now I have to struggle with jealousy and envy about those who were weaned on sound theology and started their ministerial education when they were fresh out of high school. If I had gone
to school instead of joining YWAM, I would have been in my second year of seminary by the time YWAM leaders determined I was demon possessed. I could have had the M.Div. by 1983 and I would now have almost 20 years of Gospel ministry behind me. As it
stands, I have spent the better part of my Christian life trying to undo the doctrinal confusion and condemnation that was heaped on me in YWAM.
> I have since come to realize that the real reason that Annias and Sapphira
> were killed by God, was because they threatened the integrity of the early
> church. If it could be shown that the New Testament witnesses were not
> credible, the authority of the entire New Testament would have been
> undermined
> I thought it was because they lied to the Holy Spirit? At least, that's
> what Acts 5:3 says.
John Dawson says that he lives in L.A. in an African American neighborhood (Taking Our Cities for God). I have been swimming with him in his swimming pool in Lake View Terrance, overlooking the San Fernando Valley.
While it is true that there are now a lot of African Americans living in the neighborhood, it is completely different than the 'hoods I lived in in Detroit and South Central. And Lake View Terrace is quite a distance from L.A. proper. It is true that
Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit, but so has Loren Cunningham and a lot of YWAMers -- why haven't they dropped dead? What about the positive confession movement, where it is common for sick people to claim that they are healed? Why
is Mike Warnke, Jim Bakker, Paul Crouch, etc., etc., still alive? Is YWAM really so extremely successful in evangelism? Or is YWAM almost entirely filled with people who were drained from the already existing churches? Some reports about crusades in
the 70s are now coming out and I was there. The reports are a lot different than what I remember. Lying to the Holy Spirit can bring in a lot of fame, not to mention the financial reward.
The question is: Why did God hit Ananias and Sapphira so hard while he doesn't do that to liars today? Loren says it is because the "unity factor" was so important in the early church. I say it is because of the
"apologetic factor" while the credibility of the witnesses was being established.
One thing that should be taken into account that disproves Loren's thesis, is that the early church seemed to have unity for only a short time and then there was all kinds of division, yet the book of Acts is full of successful
evangelism even after all the division got going. Again, we come back to the biblical principle that God works through the Word, with or without unity. On the other hand, it is clear that Loren and YWAM have caused countless divisions and church
splits because of false doctrine and unbiblical practice.
> Page 53 "We decided to take a missions trip through Europe and Asia -- right
> after our honeymoon -- to see if Dar would hear from God what her role was
> to be.
Does Scripture say anything about the role of a Christian wife? Is Scripture a sufficient guide in this respect? Why was she seeking other voices, unless Scripture was thought deficient?
> We grabbed a honeymoon weekend in Carmel, California, then stored our
> wedding gifts in the folks' house. Before leaving for overseas, I took Dar
> by to see our 'nest egg' -- a four-bedroom house in La Puente. I'd been able
> to buy it with a small down payment, finance the rest with Dad as a
> cosigner, and rent it out to cover the payments. 'It'll be a little security
> for the future,' I pointed out to my bride."
> It seems that Mr. Cunningham was not only educated and spiritually superior
> to other Christians because he was motivated and could hear God's voice, but
> also quite rich!
> Earlier, regarding Cunningham's education, you made a comment about his
> wealth. On pages 33 and 34, he says that his wealthy Aunt Sandra was
> funding his education.
It seems that his wealthy Aunt Sandra was more godly than his grandfather. While the grandfather dumped his kids off as farm hands, and they were shifted from home to home, Aunt Sandra even paid for the college
education of her nephews! It's kind of a Jew and gentile story as seen in Romans 2:17-29:
"Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that
you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth -- you, then, who teach others, do you not teach
yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the
law? As it is written: 'God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.' Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not
circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are
a lawbreaker. A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.
Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God."
Later Aunt Sandra joined a Baptist church and was singing in the choir. Loren visited her when she was dying and "led her to Christ." Which side of the barber illustration should that be on?
> Even if he is wealthy, what's your point? Is being 'quite rich' sinful or a
> moral failing?
Not at all, but it's a lot different than praying for money to buy a tube of toothpaste -- as is the condition of the average YWAMer. Perhaps part of my problem with people like Loren Cunningham is that they are the ones that my
parents always pointed to when they told of why they rejected Christ and Christianity. My dad finally came to Christ while he was dying of lung cancer at the age of 81. My mom (88) and brother (55) are still unbelievers. I am also quite aware that
there are millions of Americans who reject the Christian message because of the apparent hypocrisy of those who have a bunch of followers living in poverty, while they bask in their abundance as those "favored by the Lord," or
"the Lord's anointed."
"Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion
will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the
ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing
you." James 5:1-6
> Page 105 "I gradually quieted my mind, centering down on Jesus, yielding to
> Him and worshiping him (sic), ready to listen to anything His Spirit wanted
> to say in my mind."
> This sounds like it is straight out of the New Age movement. In that
> respect, Loren would be in the process of contacting his "spirit guide"
> instead of the Jesus of Scripture!
> I find it a little more reasonable to think that, since he was have some
> troubling thoughts, that he was trying to calm down and focus his thoughts
> on Jesus. I don't find that very New Agey.
I still believe he was seeking contact with his friendly spirit guide. I do not believe for one minute that the "being" he was communicating with was the Jesus of Scripture. Where in Scripture is there anything similar to
this practice? It is in perfect harmony with the New Age and Eastern religions. Although in some cases there have been good results of such communications, the words of George Otis Jr are appropriate here about the deceptions of Satan,
"He must keep the illusion going."
> Page 107 "It was a simple story, really. Yes, God had told us to get a ship,
> and repeatedly He had confirmed His guidance using all the ways we had
> learned for hearing His voice. He used the Wise Men Principle; He used
> Scriptures which He seemed to lift off the pages for us; He used provision
> of money and people, and that inner conviction -- but we had failed in the
> way (emphasis in original) we had carried out His guidance. We had subtly
> turned from the Giver to the gift."
> If we apply the "spiritual mapping" principles to this statement, we will
> clearly see the idea of Moral Government Theology with the concept that "God
> changes His mind." As a famous theologian once said, "Theology is
> practical." Apparently Cunningham believes the MGT concept that "God does
> not know the future." Accordingly, He changes His mind when He comes up with
> more information. This is a perfect alibi for false prophets also: "My
> prophecy was true, but God changed His mind!"
> There are some interesting stories in the Bible where God seems to 'repent'
> or to 'change his mind'.
>
> Gen 6:1-7, where He talks about being sorry he had He had made man.
>
> Jonah, where God doesn't fulfill a prophecy of doom because the people
> Nineveh repent.
>
> Gen 18, where Abraham 'bargians' with God over Sodom and Gomorrah.
>
> I Sam 13:13 "...For now the Lord would have established your (Saul's)
> kingdom over Israel forever. 14. But now your kingdom shall not continue.."
>
> Exodus 32:7-14 Where Moses seems to talk God out off annihialating the
> Israelites for worshiping the golden calf.
This has resurfaced as Open Theism, the Openness of God, or the Open View of God. Apparently YWAM has been teaching it to you or you wouldn't know the arguments. When I learned it in the 70s it was part and parcel of Moral
Government Theology. YWAM leaders were very dishonest and not forthright about the teaching, claiming that it was only rarely taught in YWAM, and that was a large part of what began disillusioning me about their integrity. Some of us gathered
documentation that MGT was being taught at YWAM bases all over the world and then leaders were forced to admit it. Why did they have to be forced? Then they repented for "causing controversy in the body of Christ." They have still not
repented for teaching the "doctrines of demons" and they have never directly and specifically spoken against the theology. If you want to know more about this, you can download the book, Lead Us Not Into Deception by Alan Gomes,
available through a link at Thorn Street Chronicles.
> Joy Dawson had said a lot about the ship and was a spiritual guide for
> Loren. We will probably never be able to uncover her exact words and
> prophecies, however, in relation to the ship. First, because the majority of
> those who know would never tell. Second, because the file case with all the
> records of the Maori had been thrown away, at the direction of Jim Dawson,
> who just happens to be Joy's husband (he was sometimes called "Mr. Joy
> Dawson," in secret of course, by YWAMers who saw that Joy, in her usual
> domineering style, wore the pants in the family.) The story of the "chucked"
> files goes like this: All the Maori files were in a file box which was set
> next to another file box of similar appearance. Jim Dawson told one of the
> YWAM office workers to throw away the other files. According to the story we
> got in the office, which was told with a chuckle, the YWAM worker threw away
> the wrong file box -- end result, all records ended up in some dump-yard
> somewhere, i.e., went down with the lost ship! Maybe it was an honest
> mistake!
> You insinsuate a lot here, but without much proof.
I am telling you what happened and I reserve the right to give you my take on it. You can make of it what you will. I have seen the dark side of YWAM and I guarantee you that there is a lot more that is kept in the dark about these
guys' activities. For me to understand this in any other way would be living in denial.
> Page 117 "'I consider my money well invested, Loren! God has used it to get
> your organization humbled before Him. I expect you to move ahead with a
> special power now. Congratulations!'
> "Now I was really humbled. What a man of God this English businessman was!"
> Another view may be that the guy was not a "man of God" at all, but was
> instead completely blind to the truth and deaf to the voice of God in
> Scripture
> Again, a big insinuation.
I really think the guy was not too bright. The "other Jesus" successfully got YWAM leaders to cause thousands to blaspheme God! And YWAM leaders were only superficially humbled. We have an example here of God going
to desperate extremes to try and get YWAM leaders to stop listening to the voice of a false shepherd, but even that didn't work. They went right on "channeling for Jesus."
> That evening Loren spoke. He is definitely a highly talented motivational
> speaker. During his talk, he looked straight at me and said, "Once a YWAMer,
> always a YWAMer." This was a common cliché during my YWAM daze. I took it as
> a not-so-subtle invitation from Loren to rejoin YWAM. Loren's statement made
> me realize that things had not changed in YWAM and that there was no going
> back. God had prepared me for Loren's statement by showing me the
> inconsistency in the way YWAMers, myself included, used to secretly mock and
> laugh at those who believed, "Once saved, always saved," yet, at the same
> time, we believed "Once a YWAMer, always a YWAMer." In effect, the YWAM view
> is that the organization has a greater staying-power than does the Creator
> of the universe.
> I think I will refer you back to the story you gave at the first of your
> article, about the man at the barber shop. You're perspective of
> Cunningham's intentions may not have been Cunningham's intentions. Any good
> speaker will make eye contact with the audience.
Before the meeting there was a building project dedication and I apologized to Loren for exposing YWAM and asked him what I should do. He said, "Do whatever God tells you." I have no doubt that he was not just making eye
contact with me. From his perspective, such an invitation to someone who had written against YWAM was a tremendous act of grace. He was telling me that the door was still open.
> Summary
>
> There are several areas of your article, like the Moral Government topic,
> that I didn't comment on, because I know too little about it to have an
> opinion.
Actually, you already did make comments out of the systematic theology known as Moral Government! The idea that God does not know the future choices of free-will beings and changes His mind, is an essential part of the Moral
Government "system" of theology.
> Again, I am sorry that your experience in YWAM was a bad one. My own, to
> date, has not been easy, but it has been pretty positive.
Whether my experience was good or bad is irrelevant to the truth of what I have shared at the web site, but I am happy to know that you are having a positive YWAM experience. I do not think your experience is rare in YWAM.
Then again, I hope you are not thinking that you are only getting a haircut while you are actually getting your throat slit. You have already inculcated part of the MGT system -- it will now affect you for the rest of your life,
whether you like it or not!
The website is really for those who sense that something is desperately wrong in YWAM, but they don't know what it is.
The fact that your experience "has not been easy" is not necessarily negative. A lot of things are not easy, but they can still be what we need or what is good for us. I pray that you can grow into a mature Christian and have
an effective and fulfilling ministry in the Lord.
> If I could ask one thing of you, it's to stop blaming Cunningham and the
> whole of YWAM for the things you suffered. There are people who blame all
> Christians for the abuses of a few, but that is largely unfair. It is also
> unfair of you to seek to damage a man's reputation when he wasn't the one
> who hurt you.
I have written letters to some leaders and they refuse to write back. They simply ignore me. Loren was indeed the one who put the system in place. And he has done little to turn it back from its unbiblical direction. If you
continue to read documents at the Thorn Street Chronicles, I think you will more and more see that there are some very sinister things going on in YWAM. When I first went to Indonesia, I was shocked at some of the unbiblical developments in the
church and I saw a direct correlation with the influence of YWAM.
The rank and file YWAMers are victims and almost none of them realize what has taken place in the organization and where it is ultimately headed. Although you believe the organization has done you no harm, maybe you shouldn't be so
sure. You are already arguing for the "Open View of God" but you probably have absolutely no idea of the history behind the idea and you have probably read nothing from the other side of the argument.
As soon as other parts of the Moral Government system become more acceptable to those outside of YWAM, you can bet that they will take the covers off and again show their true colors.
> I hope to hear from you. I do not intend to be harsh, but to be fair.
I think you were very fair, although I did not agree with everything you said. I want to thank you again for writing. Such letters are a real benefit to me and they are effective in getting me to recheck myself. It is only through
other members of the body of Christ that we can really examine ourselves and see if we be in the faith.
In Christ,
Greg Robertson
Note from another website:
At http://www.letusreason.org/Latrain14.htm there appears an article entitled the "Cleansing for the Kingdom." Ywam and
other groups are now fully into the listening to strange voices. Although they believe that it is the voice of God, it has been proven otherwise on numerous occasions because of the unfulfilled prophecies and "Words from the Lord."
If anyone can remember back to the June 9th, 1994 fiasco Hinkley on TBN clearly promoted a Kingdom Dominion prophecy where he said “evil will be ripped from the earth.” The kingdom was to come because evil was to be
ripped from the earth. This is what we are hearing more and more these days.
Others seemed to have received the same message at that time “it is a time for judgment and cleansing. It must be done that my church will be ready...” “This is a cleansing that removes evil from the whole world and activates
a worldwide spiritual revival with millions of people pouring into the church.” (Don Hackman, “THE EVANGELIST”) Many others such as David Griffis, director of the Youth With A Mission (YWAM) in Colorado, had a vision in which he heard the Lord
speak and saw a picture in his mind. “'June the 9th.' I saw the date in my mind and then described what would be attributed to a great disaster or even the tribulation.” Teri his wife put out a fleece to see if the date is correct and heard June
the 9th IS CORRECT. (Quoted in Discernment newsletter) Those who are looking for this type of scenario seem to hear all too often what is the opposite of the Scripture writings. Not only was the date wrong, but the content is unbiblical without
Christ’s coming. It is rare if anyone is corrected among themselves and so it continues within the Third Wave today at unprecedented proportions.
##